Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viorel Chivriga (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. The arguments for deletion are persuasive. The sockpuppetry did not help, obviously - but even discounting that, I did not see any arguments for Keeping that passed muster with the GNG. All of the arguments in favor of keeping would be bolstered if the subject were more notable - a clear sign that he is not, as yet, sufficiently notable for inclusion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Viorel Chivriga
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This has been expanded since it was first deleted, but I still don't see the subject meeting the notability criteria.

In terms of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, we don't have that. We have a pastiche of passing mentions - here a quote about an opinion of his (on his employer's website), here passing mention of another opinion he expressed during a panel discussion, and that sort of thing. Yes, I know the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material", but it's still telling that no independent sources seem to give him much in the way of significant coverage.

His political career I think doesn't rise to WP:POLITICIAN level. He was once listed in a party manifesto as a ministerial candidate, but never received the portfolio, nor was this apparently reported in outside sources. He's also deputy head of a party that is, by accounts, minor. Yes, its head is notable, but his position there doesn't make Chivriga a notable politician.

As an economist he also seems not that notable. We have a claim that he is "the most known economic expert in [Viitorul] institute", but the attached source doesn't substantiate the claim and, in any case, "best known economic expert at Viitorul institute" does not necessarily indicate notability as an economist. Other than that, we mostly have his views related to us.

I'm not denying that Chivriga has had a successful and respectable career in economics and made a foray into politics as well. But there's a line between, on the one had, a good career and, on the other hand, encyclopedic notability. He makes the first cut but not the second, I would submit. - Biruitorul Talk 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I actually cringed when I wrote keep. It appears he is a founding member of a political party started in 2011. Thus the lack of history of western English sources. See: Democratic Action Party (Moldova)  And in Moldova this person is important and notable. The article needs serious work but I believe it can be made better and more Wiki like.
 * WP:POLITICIAN 1.Politicians ... who have held ... national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
 * The following two lines in the article meets this requirement.
 * In 2009 he was called to be the Minister of Agriculture in the governmental team of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova, locally known as the PLDM.
 * On November 6, 2011, the Democratic Action Party's Congress elected Viorel Chivriga as the Vice President of the party and the Head of Chisinau local party organization.
 * Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your contribution misinterprets WP:POLITICIAN. As I noted in my nomination statement, Chivriga was merely proposed for the Agriculture Ministry, but never received the post, nor does the proposal appear to have been covered in any sources external to the platform of the party that proposed him. And no, being among the founders of a political party and its deputy leader (especially one with 8000 members) also does not automatically qualify one under the criterion, particularly as coverage of Chivriga in this role is marginal at best. As I've said, the founder, leader and central figure of the party, Mihai Godea, is notable, not least because he's a member of the Moldovan Parliament. But nothing of the sort applies in Chivriga's case.
 * The "lack of history of western English sources" argument also doesn't hold water: nearly all the sources presented here are in Romanian, and a couple in Russian. The article is presumably written by a Moldovan. I myself, who know Romanian, have tried in vain to turn up significant, convincing coverage of the man.
 * So no, he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PROF or, it seems, any of the GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 14:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - In order to make an objective and short analysis of whether Viorel Chivriga is notable or not, I will state simply my opinion regarding each point discussed by you before.
 * In the main summary, the author gives him the title of an economist and agriculture expert. Thus, his political notability is not of primary importance in this case because the article doesn't develop this topic. As it goes further, the main part relates to his economic and agriculture career. Indeed, Viorel Chivriga is more a local economist rather than a worldwide known one. Nevertheless, it would be a false statement to say that there is not independent coverage of his notability. I will give you some examples. I just googled his name alongside the major Moldovan media and i got the following results: He was quoted by the major newspapers of the country like: Timpul, Jurnal de Chisinau, Flux, Adevarul and major tv channels like PublikaTV, EuroTV, JurnalTV... These examples are not singular, for sure.
 * Moreover, this page was given in order to show his activity between 2007 and 2012. To make it clear, I don't see this page as a self-promotion page. The associate Institute is just summarizing his publications and scientific work as any other university or scientific center does. If you scroll through the articles you can observe either scientific papers he authored or his press coverage.
 * In regards, to his scientific publications, this link is a good one to see the titles, the dates and the publishers of his papers: here. In case you consider this argument as biased, please google his works and you will get the electronic versions.
 * About his political notability as you touched this subject, here it is the top 100 of most influential politicians in Republic of Moldova. HERE! Cntrl F, Viorel Chivriga, here it is. BUT, as I said, the article doesn't categorize him as a politician, there is no word in the whole text which says that he is a politician. The author just added the last activities in which he emerged, which is politics. To start a career in politics doesn't make you a politician all of a sudden, in this case, the author had the discretion to not categorize him as such. Alexandru  —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alexandru Ecru has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of, the article's creator. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I checked the sources provided by Alexandru related to his media coverage and indeed he is a notable figure. I am for maintaining the article. In my opinion, there is no need of other sources, there are already more than 30. A good article about a Moldovian economist.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Bujor (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Radu Bujor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of, the article's creator. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails politician based on the translations I have found. The sockpuppets probably will have brought more attention that they would have normally, so congrats on torpedoing the article yourselves :-)   dangerous  panda  20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep I come from Moldova. Alexandru is right in what he is saying. He is a public figure who is present in different media institutions. DangerousPanda can you please write below the translation you found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breaking Good (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt Sorry, but there is nothing to add, and the sockpuppet noise here is enough to make one sick to the stomach. It looks to me like the "start new article" hype has just now been striking Moldovan PR spammers. Or is there a LaRouche-type movement growing in Moldova? Sorry dude(s), but this doesn't even help your employer. Publish elsewhere. Dahn (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that Viorel Chivriga is not internationally acclaimed person does not necessarily mean that he is not famous in his motherland (Moldova). From the citations I can see that he appeared in many famous mass media releases. I found several interesting articles posted on the official website of the NGO he is working for. After reading the article, I think that the intention of the author was not to highlight the fact that he is a politician rather to present him as an economist who is also involved in politics. Levan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levan Bregvadze (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - from what I can see, most of the articles are by him not about him . But the COI sock-spam is spectacular... Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Ok, let's it make it simpler. Indeed I used two different accounts to post comments. The last one written by Levan Bregvadze, is not mine. If the consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments than I will repeat my comments here and I hope that nobody will delete it:


 * In order to make an objective and short analysis of whether Viorel Chivriga is notable or not, I will state simply my opinion regarding each point discussed by you before.
 * In the main summary, the author gives him the title of an economist and agriculture expert. Thus, his political notability is not of primary importance in this case because the article doesn't develop this topic. As it goes further, the main part relates to his economic and agriculture career. Indeed, Viorel Chivriga is more a local economist rather than a worldwide known one. Nevertheless, it would be a false statement to say that there is not independent coverage of his notability. I will give you some examples. I just googled his name alongside the major Moldovan media and i got the following results: He was quoted by the major newspapers of the country like: Timpul, Jurnal de Chisinau, Flux, Adevarul and major tv channels like PublikaTV, EuroTV, JurnalTV... These examples are not singular, for sure.
 * Moreover, this page was given in order to show his activity between 2007 and 2012. To make it clear, I don't see this page as a self-promotion page. The associate Institute is just summarizing his publications and scientific work as any other university or scientific center does. If you scroll through the articles you can observe either scientific papers he authored or his press coverage.
 * In regards, to his scientific publications, this link is a good one to see the titles, the dates and the publishers of his papers: here. In case you consider this argument as biased, please google his works and you will get the electronic versions.
 * About his political notability as you touched this subject, here it is the top 100 of most influential politicians in Republic of Moldova. HERE! Cntrl F, Viorel Chivriga, here it is. BUT, as I said, the article doesn't categorize him as a politician, there is no word in the whole text which says that he is a politician. The author just added the last activities in which he emerged, which is politics. To start a career in politics doesn't make you a politician all of a sudden, in this case, the author had the discretion to not categorize him as such.


 * For Stalwart111, he is not a journalist to write the articles himself. In the press, Chivriga was cited by the journalists. He was asked about some aspects and issues related to Moldovan economy or politics. He stated his opinion, as Krugmann does for New York time, bloomberg or other media channels and was printed. It doesn't mean that Chivriga is like Krugmann, it means that Chivriga in Moldova has much more authority and is more notable than Krugmann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domain Flag (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, at last count, it was at least four different accounts. So for a start, I would strongly recommend you have a read of WP:SOC and have a look at the note on the top of these pages each time you edit - "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust".


 * That aside, it doesn't matter whether he is classified as an economist, a politician, a goat-farmer or a circus clown. There are plenty of people who fit into more than one category. But the subject has to at least meet WP:GNG - the general notability criteria for inclusion. My suggestion was that, in my opinion, he doesn't. I'm happy to accept that a couple of the sources provide (minor) coverage of him rather than by him, but a good many of those could not possibly be considered reliable sources anyway, which makes it very hard to wade through them and determine which should be used against the criteria at WP:GNG. One, as an example, is from a bizarre religious quasi-hate-page where other articles include anti-Semitic op-ed rants - suggesting it is a reliable source for "news" is laughable. Strangely, it seems to be from some sort of officially sanctioned think tank. Others are clearly not in English. While non-English sources are fine, given the obvious conflict of interest editing, it is difficult for others to "take your word for it" that the sources meet the criteria for "significant coverage".


 * At the moment, the questionable sources, blatant conflict of interest editing and ridiculous sock-puppetry have made it almost impossible to make an educated determination about the article. Most people will tend to assume that if reliable sources did exist and could be cited, the sock-puppetry, COI editing and silly games simply wouldn't be necessary. I'm afraid you have done yourself (and the subject) a great disservice. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's look at WP:GNG criterias and discuss them one by one:


 * 1) Significant coverage - As it is said in WP:GNG, the sources should address the subject directly. I included 30 (and something) of sources. All sources provided cite mostly every sentence in the article so no original research issue could arise. If it is still less than you expect, I can provide 100 sources. 10 to each sentence from the article. His coverage in Moldovian Media is huge. To give you an example, see the google result on the 40th page :P Google 40th page(Chivriga) Nevertheless, this idea is not so promising because the same content can be found on different media channels. For instance, Chivriga discussed the issue of droughts in Moldova in PublikaTV and in Flux Newspaper. In both sources, Viorel Chivriga is cited as an economist. In both source, Chivriga expressed his suggestions towards a drought eradication plan. This proves the argument of secondary sources of information.


 * 2) Reliable : "bizarre religious quasi-hate-page where other articles include anti-Semitic op-ed rants". Can you be more explicit and provide here in the page of discussions the link to this webpage? Going forward with the criterias I cite once again the so-named  WP:GNG. "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability". In my opinion, here it is stated very clearly that a person can be notable if he is present in all forms of media, see the links of media where he was cited: Jurnal de Chisinau is published three times per week with a circulation rate of 25 931 papers, Timpul de Dimineata is published daily with a circulation rate of 30700 papers, Adevarul is a national magazine published 3 times per week with a circulation rate of 13400 papers, he was also cited in other newspapers but it will be a too long post, so if you need more newspaper evidences do it by yourself. The information related to the circulation rate I obtained from HERE!. Let's see his coverage at TV Channels, he was present in the studio of the following Channels: PublikaTV was watched by 4 010 291 people during last month, Jurnaltv was watched by 7,3 million during last month. The info about how many viewing were registered you can see at Metrica.MD. Oh, almost forgot, the central TV Channel in Moldova: TVM. Are these sources anti-semitic? Not at all. Are they reliable? I guess these sources are the most reliable in Moldova from all the media organization the Republic has.


 * 3) Sources- It was said already too much on this chapter. Once thing is clear, there are plenty of sources. Google it, Bing it, Yahoo it.


 * 4) Independent of the subject: Most articles which I included in the reflist and in this short monologue are mostly written or published by independent organizations not affiliated to Viorel Chiviga.


 * 5) Presumed: I like this criteria most because it leaves room for further discussion: Viorel Chivriga is presumed to be notable and now the editors should come up with a definite conclusion.


 * About sockpuppets, Stalwart111 try to refute all I just have said and after this, I will give you an answer why did I use them. Cheers to everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domain Flag (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Appearing on television or being interviewed in a newspaper is not conclusive evidence of notability. Neither are search results or videos published on your own political party's website. And you don't get to place conditions on editors to reveal why you created a clutch of sockpuppets to save this article; you refrain from creating the socks in the first place and declaring your conflict of interest if you have one. Which, given that your only activity on Wikipedia has been related to Mihai Godea, Natalia Ciobanu (deleted) and Viorel Chivriga, who all just happen to be figures in the Democratic Action Party, seems a distinct possibility. - Biruitorul Talk 17:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Domain Flag... Absolutely not - I will not help you justify your bad-faith use of sock-puppets or silly COI editing. You should have been blocked and we shouldn't be having this conversation - the fact that we are means an admin somewhere has decided you should have the right to defend your article. I will (begrudgingly, because it's disgusting) highlight at least one of the other "headlines" from www.mdn.md - the very first "reference" provided - "Jewish Supremacist Organization Lights Menorah in front of White House!". It's probably best not to go into the details of the article itself, and I don't think it's necessary. It is not up to others to find sources for your COI article - that's the whole point of the burden of proof. It might be that the article could be improved, and often editors will "pitch-in" and help. I regularly try to fix articles which have been brought to AFD in the interests of improving Wikipedia. But nothing about your efforts, your conduct or the subject (or the disgusting "sources" cited to support his notability) inspire me to trawl Google on the off-chance I might find something worthwhile. You have brought this upon yourself. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Biruitorul are you sure you understood the WP:GNG criteria? Exactly, being cited in press, being present in TV channels, writing scientific papers, means to express your name to the public which gives you in turn notability. As I said I can give you many other newspapers or TV-channels with him being cited there, not only these which I mentioned before. Once again, I see phrases with no logical argumentation, for example, "videos published on your own political party's website". What website? Do you mean PUBLIKATV? It's a national TV channel...In case you have any proof, give it and don't lie. About my activity on wikipedia it's not your business. I write about what I want, as you do it by yourself. And You know why I didn't write any other articles? Simple, my first ones, were deleted for no reason. I will finish this one, and after that, I will write a new one maybe on other topic. Please give me the right to give you a lesson, you write about cats because you like cats, cats interest you, right? I write about the leaders of this organization because I like it, and because I think some of these leaders reached the level of notability to be on wikipedia. End of question.


 * Stalwart 111  I should have been blocked? This is your argument? Is it indeed all what you can? I wrote five paragraphs, explained in detail why this article stands the notability criteria, and you, instead of refuting them, in case you believe in ur position, you are telling me : I don't want to talk to you because you are bad. Like a 14 years old kid. I USED SOCK PUPPETS BECAUSE YOU THOSE WHO DELETE ARTICLES, INSTEAD OF ARGUING LIKE INTELLIGENT BEINGS, ARE JUST STATING TWO PHRASES : DELETE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET CRITERIA. I used the sock puppets because your arguments were like: "Delete Fails politician based on the translations I have found. ", "Delete - from what I can see, most of the articles are by him not about him.".  What translation? What articles? Can you think before posting something? Do you know Romanian? Do you a single thing about Moldovan Economics or Politics to express an objective opinion? About the mdn.md wesbite, indeed you are right, the page is not reliable. I am sorry for this citation, I will delete it right now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.44.243 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The source material independent of Viorel Chivriga that I found says things like, "Romania's entry into the EU on 1 January 2007 and its withdrawal from a free trade agreement with Moldova will affect Moldovan exports given the fact that local producers will not be capable of quickly reorientating their exports, economic analyst Viorel Chivriga says", "Expert Viorel Chivriga of the IDIS Viitorul centre criticizes the ruling ...", "Economic analyst Viorel Chivriga said Russia's actions are likely linked to ...", and "Viorel Chivriga, of the IDIS-Viitorul think tank, says that after the 5 September (2010) referendum ..." There is not enough source material independent of the topic for a Biography of Viorel Chivriga Wikipedia article under WP:GNG. You could try a Commentary of Viorel Chivriga article, but such a subtopic usually is part of a biography article and doesn't seem to be justified under WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.